[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of scheme implementation
From: |
David Allouche |
Subject: |
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Efficiency of scheme implementation |
Date: |
Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:04:58 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i |
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 05:05:57PM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> Here are some (approximate) timings for (fib 35):
>
> Guile 37 sec
> Scheme 48 17 sec
> MzScheme 8 sec
>
> Whenever we have time to implement another Scheme backend,
> it thus seems that MzScheme remains the best choice.
> Maybe someone knows of some more classical benchmarks for
> Scheme implementations?
The Ackerman function? ;)
Maybe you should try running some of your experimental non-deterministic
evaluation code. Continuations are such a sexy feature for tree
traversals, it is a shame to be forced out of using them because of
performance problems.
Also, you might want to keep an eye out for developments in Pika. That's
the new scheme system from Tom Lord, currently still pre-alpha, but it
looks promising and its certainly more lightweight than MzScheme.
--
-- ddaa